USA V. ANTONIO GONZALEZ, JR., No. 17-50016 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 16 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-50016 D.C. No. 3:16-cr-01835-CAB v. MEMORANDUM* ANTONIO GONZALEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Antonio Gonzalez, Jr., appeals his bench-trial conviction for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Gonzalez contends that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). prove the elements of a duress defense. We review mixed questions of law and fact de novo. See United States v. Acosta-Sierra, 690 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court did not err in concluding that Gonzalez had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted under duress. See United States v. Solorzano-Rivera, 368 F.3d 1073, 1081 (9th Cir. 2004). The court was entitled to question Gonzalez’s credibility. See United States v. Archdale, 229 F.3d 861, 867 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, the record supports the court’s conclusion that the threat alleged by Gonzalez was insufficient to support his duress defense. See 9th Cir. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.5 (2010) (to establish duress, defendant must prove that threat was “present, immediate, or impending”); United States v. Chi Tong Kuok, 671 F.3d 931, 948 (9th Cir. 2012) (a threat is “immediate” only if it is specific; “vague and undetailed threats will not suffice”). AFFIRMED. 2 17-50016

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.